The collapse of Lehman Brothers was a major test of the procedures developed by market participants to address counterparty credit risk and has uncovered deficiencies in risk management policies and their application.

The Bottom Line

In In re CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., 20-33163, 2020 WL 7356380 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the court to alter a debtor’s rent obligations beyond the 60-day post-petition period enumerated in Section 365(d)(3) of the code. However, the court declined to address the remedy for a violation of Section 365(d)(3).

What Happened?

Background

On March 27, the president signed into law Phase 3 of the federal stimulus program, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. Title I of the act, titled the Keeping American Workers Paid and Employed Act (KAWPEA), directs, among other amounts, $349 billion to small businesses as part of an expansion of the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 7(a) loan program under a new paycheck protection loan program (PPP) as well as $10 billion through an expansion to the SBA’s Section 7(b) economic injury disaster loan (EIDL) program.

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

In one of the first applications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the scope of section 546(e) in Merit Management, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Carey found that section 546(e)’s safe harbor did not apply to fraudulent transfers between two parties that were not financial institutions, even if the transaction passed through financial intermediaries.

What Happened

The Bottom Line

In another decision affecting Chapter 11 cases, U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, --- S. Ct. ---, 2018 WL 1143822 (2018), on March 5, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Kagan, affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision to review the Bankruptcy Court’s determination of a mixed question of fact and law for clear error, rather than de novo.

The Bottom Line:

The Bottom Line

Part 1 of this series described the recent decision of the ISDA Americas Determinations Committee to declare that a “failure to pay” had occurred with respect to iHeartCommunications Inc., notwithstanding that the only non-payment had been to a wholly owned subsidiary. The non-payment was orchestrated to avoid a springing lien that would have been triggered had all the notes of a particular issue of iHeartCommunications debt been paid in full. It did not reflect on the creditworthiness of iHeartCommunications.